JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the department and Sri Piyush Agarwal, advocate on behalf of the assessee.
2. This trade tax revision filed by the department, is directed against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Moradabad dated July 2, 1999 in Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998 (assessment year 1990-91), Second Appeal No. 93 of 1999 (assessment year 1990-91) and Second Appeal No. 271 of 1998 (assessment year 1990-91) and is confined to the issue as to whether mere submissions of form F, is sufficient to hold that the transactions in questions, were consignment sales.
3. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the department submits that under Rule 4(4) of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules, 1957, a detailed procedure has been prescribed for maintenance of records in respect of consignment sales. In absence of the aforesaid records having been referred to or having been taken into consideration by the Trade Tax Tribunal mere submission of form F itself is not sufficient to record that the transactions in question were consignment sales.
4. Learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified and therefore, calls for no interference under revisional jurisdiction.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present trade tax revision.
6. From the records it is apparent that the Tribunal has proceeded to accept the case pleaded by the assessee in respect of consignment sale only on the ground that form F has now been produced by the assessee. The Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the intent and the requirement of Rule 4(4) of the Rules, 1957. There is nothing on record to establish that the relevant records referable to Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1957 were maintained/produced by the assessee before the authorities concerned at any point of the proceedings.
7. This court is, therefore, satisfied that there has been non-application of mind to the statutory rules by the Trade Tax Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal dated July 2, 1999 in Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998 (assessment year 1990-91), Second Appeal No. 93 of 1999 (assessment year 1990-91) and Second Appeal No. 271 of 1998 (assessment year 1990-91) cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. The Trade Tax Tribunal is directed to decide Second Appeal No. 257 of 1998 (assessment year 1990-91), Second Appeal No. 93 of 1999 (assessment year 1990-91) and Second Appeal No. 271 of 1998 (assessment year 1990-91) afresh having regard to the provisions of Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1957.
9. The aforesaid exercise must be completed by the Trade Tax Tribunal within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Tribunal.
10. The present trade tax revision is accordingly allowed subject to the observations made above.